<onlyinclude>

1. REDIRECTThe Hurlbut affidavits

Response to claim: 177, 544n29 (HB) 542n29 (PB) - Joseph Smith boasted: "I am the only man that has been able to keep the whole church together....Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Joseph Smith boasted: "I am the only man that has been able to keep the whole church together....Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it"?

Author's sources: History of the Church, 6:408-409. Volume 6 link

FAIR's Response

• Use of sources: Joseph's "Grandiose Sense of Self Importance"

#REDIRECTJoseph Smith's alleged narcissism#Was Joseph Smith prone to boasting?

Response to claim: 178, 544n34 (HB) 542n34 (PB) - The author claims that Joseph Smith boasted of his "violent deeds"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Joseph Smith boasted of his "violent deeds." Was Joseph boasting of violence when he claimed: "I wrestled with William Wall, the most expert wrestler in Ramus, and threw him?"

Author's sources: *History of the Church, 5:302. Volume 5 link

FAIR's Response

Question: Did Joseph Smith boast of his "violent deeds"?

The quote makes no reference at all to fighting, nor an attempt to harm another individual: Joseph is simply speaking of the recreational sport of wrestling

One critic of Mormonism claims that Joseph Smith boasted of his "violent deeds." He offers this example from History of the Church:

In the History of the Church, for example, under the date of March 13, 1843, we find this entry: "I wrestled with William Wall, the most expert wrestler in Ramus, and threw him." ^[15]

According to the critic, this is an example of Joseph Smith "boasting of his violent deeds." Such a reference is evidently intended to support the thesis found in the subtitle of Chapter Nine; that Joseph was "America's Fighting Prophet." ^[16]

The truth of the matter is that the words make no reference at all to fighting, nor an attempt to harm another individual. On the contrary, the quote is simply speaking of the recreational sport of wrestling.

George Q. Cannon spoke of the above-mentioned occasion, saying,

On Monday, the 13th day of March, 1843, Joseph met William Wall, the most expert wrestler of Ramus, Illinois, and had a friendly bout with him. He easily conquered Wall who up to that time had been a champion. ^[17]

There is no account describing this event as being anything other than fun and games. The quote the author cites is certainly of no exception. The snip comes from Joseph's journal, and all that is written there is,

Monday, 13.--I wrestled with William Wall, the most expert wrestler in Ramus, and threw him. ^[18]

That is it. The other events of the day are then recorded (i.e., Almon W. Babbitt was appointed as a Presiding Elder, 27 children were blessed in the evening, weather in Nauvoo was very cold… etc.).

Response to claim: 179, 544n36 (HB) 542n36 (PB) - The author claims that Joseph boasted of his fighting skill and his strength

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Joseph boasted of his fighting skill and his strength. Did Joseph boast of his fighting skill and his strength when he said: "I feel as strong as a giant....I pulled up with one hand the strongest man that could be found. Then two men tried, but they could not pull me up."

Author's sources: History of the Church, vol. 5, 466.

FAIR's Response

Question: Did Joseph Smith brag about his strength and prowess in fighting?

Joseph was talking about his skill in a game called "stick pulling"

Consider these two quotes from Joseph Smith provided by the author of the critical book One Nation Under Gods:

On June 30, 1843, Smith fought and boasted again of his strength, saying: "I feel as strong as a giant....I pulled up with one hand the strongest man that could be found. Then two men tried, but they could not pull me up."36 (emphasis added) ^[19]

And,

On June 30, 1843, he wrestled and bragged again of his prowess, saying: "I feel as strong as a giant....I pulled up with one hand the strongest man that could be found. Then two men tried, but they could not pull me up."34 (emphasis added) ^[20]

In both quotes above, the author seeks to illustrate a violent personality in Joseph Smith. Notice that both quotes contain an ellipsis. What do you suppose the critic of the Church removed from the quote?

In fact, if one reads these quotes carefully, it might strike the reader odd that the struggle between Joseph and his 'opponents' did not involve something like tackling, hitting, or throwing down--which are typical action words used when describing a fight. On the contrary, the struggle involved a "pulling up" motion--a description that would, in fact, fit one of Joseph Smith's favorite recreational games: Stick-pulling.

Perhaps if we were to look up the passage, we might be able to see the proper context. Take a look at the whole quote, omission and all (the bold portion was not included in the author's quote):

I feel as strong as a giant. I pulled sticks with the men coming along, and I pulled up with one hand the strongest man that could be found. Then two men tried, but they could not pull me up.

This is not a violent description at all! "Pulling sticks" is a game of sitting on the ground, facing one another, placing feet together, grabbing forward to a stick, and attempting to pull the other person up from the ground.

Response to claim: 178, 544n39 (HB) 542n39 (PB) - Did Jedediah Grant say that Joseph hit a Baptist preacher and and then throw him to the ground?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Jedediah Grant say that Joseph hit a Baptist preacher and and then throw him to the ground so violently that he "whirled round a few times, like a duck shot in the head?"

Author's sources: Jedediah M. Grant, (September 24, 1854) Journal of Discourses 3:67.

FAIR's Response

• Use of sources: Joseph hit a baptist preacher

Question: Did Joseph Smith hit a Baptist preacher and throw him to the ground?

Jedediah Grant says nothing about Joseph Smith actually wrestling, much less 'hitting,' the Baptist preacher. He only states that the preacher was "shocked" at the Prophet's proposal

One critic of the Church claims that Jedediah Grant said that "Smith hit the [Baptist] preacher and threw him to the ground so violently that the minister 'whirled round a few times, like a duck shot in the head'" (emphasis added) ^[21]

However, the critic fails to tell us that this was in the context of the preacher being shocked by his senses, not "hit" by the Prophet.

Let's look at what Jedediah Grant actually said (the portion extracted by the author is highlighted in bold):

Before the Baptist priest, I have referred to, came to Nauvoo, he had heard brother William O. Clark, who could preach a bible and a half at a sermon, and could use the fashionable old tone, the blessed old tone. This Baptist imbibed a notion that we were as much ahead of his ideas of piety, and that our tone was as much longer than his, as the strength of the arguments produced by Clark were stronger than his; and supposed that our sanctimoniousness was co-equal with what he considered the merits of our doctrine.

Under these impressions he came to Nauvoo, and was introduced to the Prophet. In the meantime some person came up that brother Joseph would have a talk with, but while doing this he kept his eye upon the stranger, on this priest. After he got through chatting, the Baptist stood before him, and folding his arms said, "Is it possible that I now flash my optics upon a Prophet, upon a man who has conversed with my Savior?" "Yes," says the Prophet, "I don't know but you do; would not you like to wrestle with me?" That, you see, brought the priest right on to the thrashing floor, and he turned a summerset right straight. After he had whirled round a few times, like a duck shot in the head, he concluded that his piety had been awfully shocked, even to the centre, and went to the Prophet to learn why he had so shocked his piety. The Prophet commenced and showed him the follies of the world, and the absurdity of the long tone, and that he had a super-abundant stock of sanctimoniousness. ^[22]

This source says NOTHING about Joseph Smith actually wrestling, much less 'hitting,' the Baptist preacher. It only states that the preacher was "shocked" at the Prophet's proposal—evidently because he could not imagine that a prophet of God would do such a thing as engage in physical sports. This apparently softened his outlook sufficiently for Joseph to have a talk with him about avoiding "the long tone" and sanctimony.

Response to claim: 181-182 - The author claims that the commissioned officers in the Nauvoo Legion were granted "law-making powers"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that the commissioned officers in the Nauvoo Legion were granted "law-making powers"

Author's sources: No source provided.

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 182, 542n46 - Was the Nauvoo Legion simply a "resurrection" of the Danites?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Was the Nauvoo Legion simply a "resurrection" of the Danites?

Author's sources: *Hosea Stout, On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, Juanita Brooks, ed., vol. 1, 140-141, 197, 259.

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 183 - "Where were all those rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence?"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: "Where were all those rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence?"

Author's sources: None

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 186-187, 544n70 (PB) - Joseph set up a "shadow-government" called the "Council of Fifty"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Joseph set up a "shadow-government" called the "Council of Fifty" for the purpose of organizing the "political kingdom of God in preparation for the second coming of Christ"

Author's sources: Woodruff, in Kenny, under March 11, 1844, vol. 2, 366.

FAIR's Response

Question: What was the Council of Fifty?

Joseph Smith received a revelation which called for the organization of a special council

On 7 April 1842, Joseph Smith received a revelation titled "The Kingdom of God and His Laws, With the Keys and Power Thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ," which called the for the organization of a special council separate from, but parallel to, the Church. Since its inception, this organization has been generally been referred to as "the Council of Fifty" because of its approximate number of members.

The Council of Fifty was designed to serve as something of a preparatory legislature in the Kingdom of God

Latter-day Saints believe that one reason the gospel was restored was to prepare the earth for the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as the Church was to bring about religious changes in the world, the Council of Fifty was intended to bring a political transformation. It was therefore designed to serve as something of a preparatory legislature in the Kingdom of God. Joseph Smith ordained the council to be the governing body of the world, with himself as chairman, Prophet, Priest, and King over the Council and the world (subject to Jesus Christ, who is "King of kings"^[23]).

The Council was organized on 11 March 1844, at which time it adopted rules of procedure, including those governing legislation. One rule included instructions for passing motions:

To pass, a motion must be unanimous in the affirmative. Voting is done after the ancient order: each person voting in turn from the oldest to the youngest member of the Council, commencing with the standing chairman. If any member has any objections he is under covenant to fully and freely make them known to the Council. But if he cannot be convinced of the rightness of the course pursued by the Council he must either yield or withdraw membership in the Council. Thus a man will lose his place in the Council if he refuses to act in accordance with righteous principles in the deliberations of the Council. After action is taken and a motion accepted, no fault will be found or change sought for in regard to the motion.^[24]

What is interesting about this rule is that it required each council member, by covenant, to voice his objections to proposed legislation. Those council members who dissented and could not be convinced to change their minds were to withdraw from the council, however, they would suffer no repercussions by doing so. Thus, full freedom of conscience was maintained by the council — not exactly the sort of actions a despot or tyrant would allow.

The Council never rose to the stature Joseph intended

Members (which included individuals that were not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) were sent on expeditions west to explore emigration routes for the Saints, lobbied the American government, and were involved in Joseph Smith's presidential campaign. But only three months after it was established, Joseph was killed, and his death was the beginning of the Council's end. Brigham Young used it as the Saints moved west and settled in the Great Basin, and it met annually during John Taylor's administration, but since that time the Council has not played an active role among the Latter-day Saints.

Response to claim: 188, 544n78 - Did the Council of Fifty ordain Joseph to be "King and Ruler over Israel"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did the Council of Fifty ordain Joseph to be "King and Ruler over Israel"?

Author's sources: John Taylor, "A Revelation on the Kingdom of God in the Last Days given through President John Taylor at Salt Lake City," June 27, 1882, reprinted in Fred C. Coliier, ed., Unpublished Revelations, vol. 1, 133.

FAIR's Response

Question: Was Joseph Smith anointed to be "King over the earth" by the Council of Fifty?

Joseph was never anointed King over the earth in any political sense

Some people claim that Joseph Smith had himself anointed king over the whole world, and that this shows he was some sort of megalomaniac.

The Council of Fifty, while established in preparation for a future Millennial government under Jesus Christ (who is the King of Kings) was to be governed on earth during this preparatory period by the highest presiding ecclesiastical authority, which at the time was the Prophet Joseph Smith. Joseph had previously been anointed a King and Priest in the Kingdom of God by religious rites associated with the fullness of the temple endowment, and was placed as a presiding authority over this body in his most exalted position within the kingdom of God (as a King and a Priest).

Joseph was anointed as the presiding authority over an organization that was to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium

The fact that Joseph's prior anointing was referenced in his position as presiding authority over this body creates the confusion that he had been anointed King of the Earth. He was in fact only anointed as the presiding authority over an organization that was to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium. The fact that Joseph had submitted his name for consideration as President of the United States during this same period adds fodder for critics seeking to malign the character of the Prophet.

Response to claim: 189, 545n83 - The author claims that Latter-day Saints believe that "the only acceptable government" would have to be in the form of a global theocracy

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Latter-day Saints believe that "the only acceptable government" would have to be in the form of a global theocracy. Joseph said "It has been the design of Jehovah, from the commencement of the world, and is his purpose now, to regulate the affairs of the world...to stand as head of the universe, and take the reigns of government into his own hands"

Author's sources: Joseph Smith, "The Government of God," Times and Seasons 3 no. 18 (July 15, 1842), 856-857. off-site GospeLink

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 189 - Was Joseph Smith crowned "king of the world"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Was Joseph Smith crowned "king of the world"?

FAIR's Response

Question: Was Joseph Smith anointed to be "King over the earth" by the Council of Fifty?

Joseph was never anointed King over the earth in any political sense

Some people claim that Joseph Smith had himself anointed king over the whole world, and that this shows he was some sort of megalomaniac.

The Council of Fifty, while established in preparation for a future Millennial government under Jesus Christ (who is the King of Kings) was to be governed on earth during this preparatory period by the highest presiding ecclesiastical authority, which at the time was the Prophet Joseph Smith. Joseph had previously been anointed a King and Priest in the Kingdom of God by religious rites associated with the fullness of the temple endowment, and was placed as a presiding authority over this body in his most exalted position within the kingdom of God (as a King and a Priest).

Joseph was anointed as the presiding authority over an organization that was to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium

The fact that Joseph's prior anointing was referenced in his position as presiding authority over this body creates the confusion that he had been anointed King of the Earth. He was in fact only anointed as the presiding authority over an organization that was to prepare for the future reign of Jesus Christ during the Millennium. The fact that Joseph had submitted his name for consideration as President of the United States during this same period adds fodder for critics seeking to malign the character of the Prophet.

Response to claim: 191 - The author claims that Joseph sent Orrin Porter Rockwell to kill ex-Governor Boggs

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Joseph sent Orrin Porter Rockwell to kill ex-Governor Boggs

Author's sources: *No source provided.

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 191 - The author claims that D&C 98:31 justifies the murder of personal enemies

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Response to claim: 191 - The author claims that D&C 98:31 justifies the murder of personal enemies

Author's sources: DC 98꞉31

FAIR's Response

• Use of sources: D&C 98:31 justifies murder

Question: Does Doctrine and Covenants 98:31 justify the murder of one's personal enemies?

This scripture describes when a just war may be entered into - it has nothing to do with justifying murder

This scripture describes when a just war may be entered into—it requires that the Christian suffer unprovoked attack three times, and then one has the option of going to war. It says nothing about murder of personal enemies:

29 And then [after three attacks, and having warned your enemy in the name of the Lord], if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children's children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands;

30 And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children's children unto the third and fourth generation.

31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.
...

33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;

36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people. (D&C 98꞉29-36) (emphasis added)

Any implementation of this principle requires yet another unprovoked attack in which the Christian or his family are at risk of their lives, to which one may then respond with deadly force. It says nothing at all about murder.

Response to claim: 192, 546n98 (PB) - The author claims that Porter Rockwell admitted that he had tried to kill Lilburn Boggs

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Porter Rockwell admitted that he had tried to kill Lilburn Boggs.

Author's sources:

• Orrin Porter Rockwell. Quoted in Harold Schindler, Orrin Porter Rockwell, Man of God, Son of Thunder, 80.
• Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker, A Book of Mormons, 250.

FAIR's Response

Question: Did Porter Rockwell admit to shooting Lilburn Boggs?

The author does not tell us that his source, Schindler, was criticized for giving credence to anti-Mormon sources on this issue

The author of the critical book One Nation Under Gods claims that Porter Rockwell admitted that he had tried to kill Lilburn Boggs. ^[25] He offers the following sources:

• Orrin Porter Rockwell. Quoted in Harold Schindler, Orrin Porter Rockwell, Man of God, Son of Thunder, 80.
• Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker, A Book of Mormons, 250.

The author does not tell us that his source, Schindler, was criticized for giving credence to anti-Mormon sources on this issue:

Anti-Mormon testimony is given free rein in relation to the shooting of Governor Boggs, especially in an effort to link Joseph Smith with it through the death "prophecies" which Rockwell tried to fulfill. Evidence of these predictions of Boggs's early and violent demise unravel into loose ends as the whole affair becomes unfinished business. After an accumulation of anti-Mormon charges convinces one of Rockwell's guilt, a contrary court decision such as that of Judge Pope (p. 88) throws the whole question back to where it has been for over a century--a state of uncertainty in which each reader decides the case for himself according to his personal prejudices.^[26]

A review of the second edition of this work noted the same difficulties:

The late Gustive O. Larson reviewed the first edition of the Rockwell biography for Dialogue (Winter 1966) and objected primarily to the "over-abundance of irresponsible testimony and sensationalism represented by such names as William Daniels, Bill Hickman, Joseph H. Jackson, Swartzell, Achilles, Beadle, and . . . Kelly and Birney's 'Holy murder' . . ." I feel that Larson's criticism is still valid and see little effort on the part of the author to rectify this tendency.^[27]

Rockwell was acquitted by a Missouri jury, after being held captive for more than a year

The author does not mention McLaws' paper, which examined the evidence and found it insufficient to assign blame to anyone.^[28]

One Nation Under Gods also fails to account for the fact that Rockwell was acquitted by a Missouri jury, after being held captive for more than a year—if a jury in hostile Missouri would not condemn him, how good could the evidence have been?^[29]

Response to claim: 192, 546n99 (PB) - The author claims that Joseph Smith escaped both times after he was arrested twice for his alleged role in Boggs' assassination attempt

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Joseph Smith escaped both times after he was arrested twice for his alleged role in Boggs' assassination attempt

Author's sources: Hallwas and Launius, Cultures in Conflict, 88-89.

FAIR's Response

• Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Loaded and prejudicial language

Response to claim: 192 - "Not until 1841 in Nauvoo...was Smith's seemingly insatiable lust for women and young girls unleashed"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: "Not until 1841 in Nauvoo...was Smith's seemingly insatiable lust for women and young girls unleashed."

Author's sources: Author's opinion.

FAIR's Response

• Loaded and prejudicial language

Response to claim: 193 - Did Joseph Smith advocate the practice of polyandry?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Joseph Smith advocate the practice of polyandry?

Author's sources: No source provided.

FAIR's Response

Question: Was Joseph Smith married or sealed to women who were already married to other living men?

Joseph Smith was sealed to 11 women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church

Among Joseph's plural marriages and/or sealings, between eight to eleven of them were to women who were already married. Of the eight well-documented cases, five of the husbands were Latter-day Saints, and the other three were either not active in or not associated with the Church. In all cases, these women continued to live with their husbands, most of them doing so until their husbands died. These eternal marriages appear to have had little effect upon the lives of the women involved, with the exception that they would be sealed to Joseph in the afterlife rather than to their earthly husbands. One of the most well-known of these "polyandrous" marriages was to Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs.^[30]

Of all the aspects of Joseph Smith's marital theology, this is the most difficult area to understand, because very little primary evidence exists. As one scholar noted:

Perhaps nothing is less understood than Joseph Smith's sealings to women already married, because the evidence supports conflicting interpretations.^[31]

Criticisms related to Joseph Smith's "polyandrous" marriages

These "polyandrous" marriages have given rise to a number of criticisms:

• Why would Joseph be sealed to other men's wives?
• What was the nature of these marriages? Were they consummated?
• Why did these 11 women continue to live with and have children with their husbands even after being sealed to Joseph Smith?
• One critic of the church notes, "Joseph Smith would frequently approach other men’s wives about being his own plural wives..." ^[32]

At the time that celestial marriage was introduced, it was possible to be married for time to one person and sealed for eternity to another. These marriages appear to have been performed for the purpose of forming dynastic bonds in the afterlife, as there is no evidence that Joseph ever cohabited or had intimate relations with any of these women. No children from these marriages have ever been identified. These were sealings which would only affect Joseph's association with these women in the afterlife.

See also: Detailed overview of all polyandrous marriages

Response to claim: 193 - "The wives continued to live with their husbands after marrying Smith, but would have conjugal visits from Joseph whenever it served his needs"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: "The wives continued to live with their husbands after marrying Smith, but would have conjugal visits from Joseph whenever it served his needs."

Author's sources: No source provided. Author's opinion.

FAIR's Response

• Loaded and prejudicial language

Response to claim: 194 - Joseph violated a Biblical prohibition on marrying a mother and daughter or two sisters

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Joseph violated a Biblical prohibition on marrying a mother and daughter or two sisters

Author's sources: Leviticus 18:17-18

FAIR's Response

Question: Does the Bible prohibit polygamous marriages involving a mother and daughter?

A biblical prohibition under the Mosaic law prohibited polygamous marriages involving a mother and daughter or two sisters

A biblical prohibition under the Mosaic law prohibited polygamous marriages involving a mother and daughter:

Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. Leviticus 18꞉18

The law also prohibited one from marrying two sisters:

And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. Leviticus 20꞉14

Question: Did Joseph Smith being sealed to mothers, daughters and sisters violate a biblical prohibition?

Joseph Smith did not restore the practice of plural marriage according to Mosaic law—plural marriage was practiced prior to the institution of the Mosaic law without these restrictions

Joseph Smith did not restore the practice of plural marriage according to Mosaic law—plural marriage was practiced prior to the institution of the Mosaic law without these restrictions. A well-known example is Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel: He was married to the two sisters Rachel and Leah.

For example, the Hebrew law of "levirate marriage" actually required a man to take his childless deceased brother's wife as his own wife in order to produce offspring for his brother

It should also be noted that the biblical practice of levirate marriage, as defined by Hebrew law, required a man to take his childless deceased brother's wife as his own wife in order to produce offspring for his brother. This was also a case of marrying two sisters.

Deuteronomy 25꞉5-6 states,

5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.
6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

From the Wikipedia article "Levirate marriage":

Levirate marriage is a type of marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother's widow, and the widow is obliged to marry her deceased husband's brother.....A levirate marriage (Hebrew: yibbum) is mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5-6 of the Hebrew Bible and obliges a brother to marry the widow of his childless deceased brother, with the firstborn child being treated as that of the deceased brother, (see also Genesis 38:8) which renders the child the heir of the deceased brother and not the genetic father. ^[33]

Response to claim: 195, 547n117 (PB) - Did Joseph denounce polygamy as sinful and state that "monogamy was God's perfect design?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Joseph denounce polygamy as sinful and state that "monogamy was God's perfect design?"

Author's sources: *Times and Seasons, March 15, 1843, vol. 4, no. 9, 143.

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 196, 549n119 (HB) 547n119 (PB) - "Apostates...preached against the evils thriving in Joseph's city of debauchery and despotism"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

* Author's quote: "Apostates...preached against the evils thriving in Joseph's city of debauchery and despotism."

Author's sources: *History of the Church, 6:363. Volume 6 link

FAIR's Response

• Nauvoo Expositor Full Text
• Loaded and prejudicial language

Response to claim: 197, 547n122 (PB) - Did Joseph destroy the Nauvoo Expositor because his "entire plan to rule the world" was about to be exposed?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Joseph destroy the Nauvoo Expositor because his "entire plan to rule the world" was about to be exposed?

Author's sources:

• Clayton, see Robert C. Fillerup, under June 22, 1844, in "Nauvoo Temple History Journal, William Clayton, 1845,".
• Andrew F. Ehat, "'It Seems Like Heaven Began On Earth': Joseph Smith and the Constitution of the Kingdom of God," Brigham Young University Studies 20 (Spring 1980), 268.

FAIR's Response

• Absurd claims